The Johnson County, Iowa, Sheriff, Brad Kunkel, has taken it upon himself to go into the procurement business, spending months acquiring Flock contracts for agencies that, according to Flock’s policies, shouldn’t be customers.
Tiffin is a city of around 5,000 people in Johnson County, Iowa. The city does not have its own police department; instead, it has an agreement with the county “to provide law enforcement services.” This is common for smaller Iowa cities.
What’s not as common is the quote from Flock that appeared on the Tiffin city council agenda in early September. The agreement was not negotiated by the city, but hammered out by Flock and the county sheriff, without prior approval.
Whose Contract Is It, Anyway?
The quote for $98,900—as is typical with the company—lists 10 Flock “LPR” cameras, but the fine print reveals the contract is not for the purchase or lease of any hardware, but for a $30,000/year annually recurring subscription to Flock’s database with an initial term of 36 months.
This item came before the Tiffin city council in the midst of strong public outcry against the procurement process in neighboring Coralville.
The “Billing Company” and address on the quote are not Tiffin’s; they name the Johnson County Sheriff’s Office. As a general rule, of course, a city government cannot sign contracts on behalf of a county, or any other government.
But that’s not the only problem.
The improper contract was negotiated over a three-month timespan by the Johnson County Sheriff’s Department, which lacked formal authorization from either Johnson County or the City of Tiffin to do so.
Being a “fixer” for other cities is not typically in a sheriff’s job description; the position doesn’t, as a rule, require taking on procurement tasks for other governments.
Sheriff Kunkel decided otherwise.
It did not go well.
“I Assume This Process Starts With You”
A June 6, 2025 text exchange between Johnson County and an unknown person—presumably a Tiffin official—asks if Johnson County needs anything from the city “to get the conversation going for Flock.”
A few days later, Deputy Sergeant Hynes sent a kick-off email, copying Johnson County Sheriff Brad Kunkel and Crystal Raiber of Phelan Tucker Law LLP.[1]
Many would expect a nearly $100,000 contract in a town of 5,000 people to begin with democratic, financial, or legal approval. Instead, Deputy Sergeant Hynes wrote: “[Flock Safety Sales rep] Mr. Moch—I assume this process starts with you.” A telling statement for what was to follow.
It is clear from communications that Tiffin city administrator Doug Boldt and Mayor Tim Kasparek were not leading the procurement effort. The out-of-place commendation for Sgt. Hynes from Flock Sales for “bringing this in” makes it clear he is taking on duties far outside his role.
Someone whose professional responsibilities actually include procurement might have thought to submit Flock’s deployment plan for approval. The plan is a critical part of the contract that determines where Flock will place its cameras.
Flock did not send this document to Tiffin until September 3rd — a day after the city council meeting where the contract, still with the wrong name on it, was to be discussed.
A “Mistake” No One Caught for Three Months
At first glance, Flock putting the wrong name on a quote might appear like an honest mistake.
In this case, the contract took three months to make its way from Kunkel and Hynes’ desk to the Tiffin city council. During that time, key persons were demonstrably involved: the Sheriff, the Tiffin city administrator, and the (presumed) Tiffin city attorney.
Other people who should have been involved, but weren’t, include the Tiffin city council, the Johnson County Board of Supervisors, and the Johnson County Attorney’s office[2]. Any of these would likely have caught the error, had they known what the sheriff was attempting to do.
None of them caught this “mistake,” despite its obvious presence on the cover sheet.
According to Johnson County, this was simply an error. But the “oops” defense creates an immediate, fatal problem.
If the contract was meant for Tiffin all along, it would be invalid on its face. Tiffin does not have a police department. Flock’s own policies and marketing materials claim they only contract with law enforcement agencies. Thousands of agencies across the country have promised their citizens and elected officials that only law enforcement will have access to this mass surveillance tool.
The story requires us to believe that the Sheriff, the Tiffin city administrator, and the Tiffin City Attorney not only missed the typo, but that everyone involved missed the fact that the correct contract would not only be invalid from the start, but could also invalidate the justification underlying many other Flock contracts.
No Authority, No Problem
When asked for a copy of the record or resolution authorizing the Sheriff to perform procurement tasks for Tiffin, city administrator Doug Boldt evasively responded, “The 28E Agreement does not prevent the purchasing authority of the City Council.”
Not to be out-evaded, Johnson County replied that a resolution authorizing the Sheriff’s department to negotiate contracts was not adopted because “no contract was entered with Flock and Johnson County.” Despite further requests, no additional documents were disclosed.
The existing Tiffin-Johnson County agreement could conceivably stretch the definition of “law enforcement” to cover the Sheriff’s Department advising on a deployment plan. If one were to try to identify high-crime areas, rather than high-traffic areas, it would seem reasonable to get input from the agency responsible for law enforcement.
But providing input does not include leading procurement processes or negotiating contracts with commercial vendors on behalf of other governments. That is specialized administrative work, not law enforcement.
The story Tiffin and Johnson County are telling is that the Johnson County Sheriff’s office spent three months, likely billed to Tiffin citizens as “law enforcement,” negotiating a contract with a commercial vendor. A contract they were not authorized to negotiate, let alone sign.
The only issue, according to the city and county, is that the contract had the wrong name on the signature line. More than two months later, the issue is yet to be corrected.
No Bids, No Justification, No Policy
Despite filing and reviewing numerous public records requests, I have yet to see competitive bids or a single-source authorization from any Flock customer in Iowa. This contract was no exception.
By all accounts, Tiffin’s taxpayers would be responsible for funding for this contract. To this end, the city has something resembling a purchase policy:
Purchases of products and materials in excess of $5,000 included in the official City Budget, except those purchase items listed in Section III, Part F below, shall require prior City Council approval.
Section III does not have a Part F, but Part B permits “Expenditures approved by the City Council.”
Purchases “with a cumulative value in excess of $1,000 but less than $5,000 … require at least two written quotations,” but no such requirement appears to exist for purchases in excess of $5,000.
Whether the city never adopted an effective policy, or whether it chose to ignore it, it sought no competitive bids and offered no sole-source justification.
City administrator Boldt admits in an email that “the City of Tiffin has only worked with Flock.”
Whether there was any further discussion before the council meeting remains unknown — despite repeated requests, Tiffin refuses to open city emails for inspection.
Instead, city administrator Doug Boldt insists the only way to inspect these public records is via the city’s preferred vendor, who will take between one and three hours to click “forward” at a staggering rate of $250 per hour.
The Contract’s Confusing Demise
Tiffin’s purchasing policy still requires council approval. On September 2nd, 2025, the item was up for discussion. What happened next is a matter of some controversy, even in the minutes.
The official meeting minutes show that the item for the Flock quote (K-3), was both removed from the agenda, and discussed and considered with no action taken:
Text messages from the Sheriff’s office say it was “struck”:
Sir,Fyi: Flock was struck from the agenda this evening, but we did have 1 individual show up to speak out against it, which he did in his alotted time. He is a coralville resident who is part of the group making noise about flock in coralville.
The individual “making noise,” referenced in the text message, was Coralville mayoral candidate Ryan Swenka. According to Swenka, there was no discussion. Instead, Swenka says, statements were made at the meeting that indicated that the item was struck from the agenda at the request of Sheriff Brad Kunkel.
Either way, the council chose not to publicly discuss the proposed contract. The supposed minor error has not been corrected and sent back to the council in the two-month period since September 2nd.
The silence on this “minor error” is telling. The contract’s collapse was not due to a typo or a slight misunderstanding, but because the entire three-month process was a farce.
The Johnson County Sheriff’s Office, acting as Tiffin’s unauthorized procurement agent, negotiated a $98,900 sole-source contract for which it had no authority, that Tiffin’s policies failed to cover, and that was presented for a vote before it was even finalized.
The contradictory minutes and evasive legal justifications form a paper trail of an illegitimate government action. The proposal may be dead, but the question of why taxpayer-funded “law enforcement” personnel were running a rogue procurement office, and why the Tiffin city council and the Johnson County Board of Supervisors are okay with this, remains very much alive.
Presumably the Tiffin city attorney, as Johnson County has in-house legal staff. ↩︎
Johnson County refuses to answer whether they were involved. Violating Iowa’s open records law, they will not produce public records that would demonstrate involvement, nor deny those records exist. From this refusal, I infer they were either not involved when they should have been, or they were involved when they should not have been. ↩︎